Brian Broderick was convicted in the Northern District of California for transmitting a communication containing a threat to injure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The case involved a series of emails and YouTube videos sent to FBI agents Christopher Salazar and Stone. In these communications, Broderick stated he was 'literally hunting' Agent Salazar, threatened to 'go beyond taking your livelihood,' and posted videos showing him surveilling the FBI office and discussing his weaponry and plans for an insurgency. During the trial, Broderick sought to introduce expert psychiatric testimony and testimony from his therapist, Mr. Mailes. The district court excluded the expert testimony after Broderick withdrew his notice to present it, and it limited Mailes's testimony to lay observations of behavior, preventing him from offering medical diagnoses or identifying himself as Broderick's treating therapist. Broderick appealed, challenging the evidentiary rulings and arguing that his speech did not constitute a true threat under the First Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit addressed three primary issues. First, regarding the psychiatric testimony, the court held that Broderick waived this issue for appeal. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, Broderick had initially provided notice of his intent to introduce expert testimony. However, before the district court could rule on the government's motion for a mental health examination, Broderick withdrew his notice and requested that the motion be denied as moot. The court ruled that withdrawing the notice was tantamount to waiving the issue, as the trial court could not rule on a mooted motion. Second, concerning the testimony of Mr. Mailes, the court found no error in the district court's limitation of his testimony. While Mailes could testify as a lay witness about his observations of Broderick's behavior using common language, he could not offer opinions based on his specialized training as a therapist or identify himself as Broderick's treating therapist. The court reasoned that identifying him as a therapist would lend an unwarranted air of expertise to his lay testimony, potentially confusing the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Third, the court rejected Broderick's First Amendment challenge. The court explained that true threats are not protected speech and must satisfy both an objective and a subjective test. Objectively, the court found that a reasonable person in the agents' positions, considering the surrounding events and the content of the emails and videos, would understand the communications as a serious expression of intent to kill or injure. Subjectively, the court found sufficient evidence that Broderick was aware that others could regard his statements as threatening and delivered them anyway, satisfying the recklessness standard required for intent. The court concluded that the evidence was adequate to support the jury's verdict.
Broderick's conviction for transmitting a threat stands, and he receives no further judicial relief. The decision reinforces the principle that a defendant must properly preserve evidentiary objections for appeal and clarifies the application of the true threat doctrine in the context of online communications and surveillance videos. The ruling leaves open the specific boundaries of lay witness testimony regarding mental health observations but confirms that medical diagnoses and the witness's professional role can be excluded to prevent jury confusion.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download